Dear Brian and Harry, Further to my earlier email I have interspersed some remarks within your text, in red. On 2011/06/13, at 14:06 , <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've always thought the same thing. This whole cm vs mm thing is nonsense. > It really doesn't matter. > My skis are 168 cm....I know that's 1680 mm. I know 2.4 km is 2400 meters. > Ok....we all get it. That's what makes the metric system so easy. You are telling me several things here. 1 You are numerate and proud of your skill in moving decimal points backwards and forwards. Unfortunately for metrication programs you belong to a relatively small group of highly numerate people. Others do not share your skills. In Australia, a regular survey of the numeracy of adults reports that about half of all Australians do not have the numerical skills to hold down a job in an office. Your planning for any metrication program should include information like this innumeracy information from Australia. Although I don't know the data for the USA but I suspect that it's not much different from that in Australia. You can avoid many problems by simply choosing to use whole numbers for almost all of your work and for your communication with other staff; see http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/WholeNumberRule.pdf 2 You have already developed a centimetre mindset already so it will be very difficult for you to change this to a millimetre mindset. It will also be difficult for you to consider metrication programs that do not follow the centimetre path that you have already chosen. I suppose that a metrication procedure that includes millimetres is simply not on your table to consider - no matter how fast the process is. See http://metricationmatters.com/docs/MetricationInADay.pdf > So--grab a 250 mL (or 25 cL) glass of wine, take a sip and relax. As a matter of interest wine is served here in 150 mL glasses - there are 5 glasses in a 750 mL bottle. > > This has to go down as one of the dumbest threads on this list yet-- > centimeter hatred. Now that's rich. Let me repeat, I do not hate centimetres. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [USMA:50601] cm vs. mm > From: Harry Wyeth <[email protected]> > Date: Sun, June 12, 2011 9:01 pm > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > Cc: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > > May I suggest that the issue of mm vs. cm is pretty low on the agenda for > moving forward with adoption of the metric system in the US? I disagree. The key to this is concentrating on the metrication process. You are quite right if you are approaching the metric system from the point of view of metrology where the centimetre is quite rightly, and historically a genuine part of the metric system and more formally of the International System of UNits (SI). But centimetres have proven to be a key delayer of metrication programs. You can slow down any metrication process with centimetres and that is why I consider avoidance of the centimetre to be so important "for moving forward with adoption of the metric system in the US?". > I know that Aussies usually refer to short measurements in mm, which is fine. > But if an American wants to order a piece of plywood cut at the lumber yard > as, say, 155 x 80 cm, I would be really pleased (I once overheard a Kiwi--NZ > citizen--asking just such a thing). Not only fine but FAST. Australia completely changed its building industry to the metric system between 1974 and 1976 using millimetres only. As you can see from the example you give, the USA is still struggling to change with centimetres - after how many years so far? Was it since Thomas Jefferson's presidency till now? > Telling someone that an easy way to know what a cm is by referring to his > finger can be useful. Same with the distance of 10 cm or 100 mm with > reference to a palm width. I personally find it easier to visualize the size > of a cat, for example, as perhaps 40 cm long than 400 mm. See the remarks above about the difficulty of changing mindsets. If you want to change a company to the metric system in a single day then you have to be aware that you are changing mindsets of people who might have low literacy levels with even lower confidence in their capacity to handle numbers at all. > > The key to adopting the metric system in the US is just to use it. It > doesn't matter if people use it incorrectly at first, or use cm instead of > mm, or even use kms instead of km, or KM, or even kph. I absolutely agree when you say "The key to adopting the metric system in the US is just to use it." I know of no better method. This is the main way that about 85% of Australians were so successful in their metrication transition using millimetres. The Australians who chose centimetres are still struggling. This was the theme used for "Metrication in a day"; see http://metricationmatters.com/docs/MetricationInADay.pdf > What we need is leadership from government--this has always been my belief-- I would very much like to agree with you on this point but when you have four year electoral cycle profound long-term issues such as the absolute importance of measurement to all human activities rarely make it to the political agenda. Let me share an old (one-page) letter to President-elect Obama and to Vice-President elect Biden when they first won office. This is dated now but I think that the thoughts are still relevant. See http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/NaughtinToObamaBiden.pdf > which could start with, for example, weighing mail in grams and measuring > postal packages in mm or cm and on and on. I am not sure, and I don't have the time to check right now, but I think that the International Postal Union is all metric and all mail from the USA has to be converted. > My favorite easy one would be selling milk in liter dairy cartons, as they > do in Canada and Australia and probably everywhere else. Agreed, and this change would be as simple and easy as the soft drink change that was made so many years ago. > > The cm vs. mm debates may be technically interesting, This is true for those who study metrology without considering how their findings might be applied (by metrication) in to the community. In my experience, metrologists are not much interested in metrication because metrication is not metrology. > but they ("The cm vs. mm debates") do not do much toward actually advancing > metrication. I totally disagree with this statement. Discussions about whether centimetres or millimetres are best to use for a metrication upgrade should be at the very heart of any debate about how we produce a smooth, economical, and FAST metrication upgrade for the USA. > > HARRY WYETH Cheers, Pat Naughtin LCAMS Author of the ebook, Metrication Leaders Guide, see http://metricationmatters.com/MetricationLeadersGuideInfo.html Hear Pat speak at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lshRAPvPZY PO Box 305 Belmont 3216, Geelong, Australia Phone: 61 3 5241 2008 Metric system consultant, writer, and speaker, Pat Naughtin, has helped thousands of people and hundreds of companies upgrade to the modern metric system smoothly, quickly, and so economically that they now save thousands each year when buying, processing, or selling for their businesses. Pat provides services and resources for many different trades, crafts, and professions for commercial, industrial and government metrication leaders in Asia, Europe, and in the USA. Pat's clients include the Australian Government, Google, NASA, NIST, and the metric associations of Canada, the UK, and the USA. See http://www.metricationmatters.com for more metrication information, contact Pat at [email protected] or to get the free 'Metrication matters' newsletter go to: http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter to subscribe.
